SRSDiscussion is a moderated space for discussing social justice issues. Our goal is to foster a welcoming space for discussion, education, and respectful debate. If you do not, at minimum, understand and agree with basic feminist tenets and the concept of intersectionality, SRSDiscussion is not the sub for you.

This includes posting guidelines and in-depth subreddit rules. Any post that is in bad faith, is not keeping with the ethos of this subreddit, or breaks site-wide rules will be removed, and users may be banned for similar violations.

If you see instances of rule-breaking, please hit the “report” button under the comment. Our mod team will be alerted and we’ll take care of it. If you need to contact us, you can send us a modmail.

Sure, you can go to that old tired argument saying "well if you hate them so much then picket back!!" if you want. But like, that's not working! EVERYONE in the US has pretty much turned against WBC -- vocally so -- and WBC is still out protesting and they show no signs of stopping because their funding is steady (thanks to countless settlements earned from abusing the same legal system that granted them free speech).

I really think there should be an outright ban -- or at least, restrictions -- on hate speech. Having a shitty opinion is one thing, but making a big stink saying that the deaths of 20 children was a good thing because it was just God's plan? I think that should be fucking illegal. I think that anyone who says that it's acceptable to kill children because it's "God's Judgment" should be thrown in jail for saying that. There is absolutely no benefit to keeping that kind of shit legal or otherwise unrestricted. At all.

Banning hate speech does not solve problems facing minorities because the problems facing minorities are almost always institutional in nature and hate speech in contemporary America is almost always produced outside of institutions and are almost always condemned by institutions.

Freedom of speech is as much a political arrangement as anything else. Any political majorities and minorities recognize that their positions could switch in the future. So you don't persecute your opponents for their speech today, in the hopes that they will afford you the same protections in the future, when they are in charge.

lol what? the point in this case is the dissident/minority is protected, regardless of who it is, as long as their speech isn't hate speech.

I don't fucking care to be nice to my political opponents just in the hopes they don't persecute me in the future. my speech isn't hateful because I'm not calling for the eradication of a previously oppressed minority.

Lmfao. You are trying to twist my very strictly defined scenario where there are actual definitions for protected minority classes and attempting to subvert that to claim that somehow minority-positive speech will be categorized as hate speech.

Hate speech is illegal here in Sweden, we still have free speech protected by our consitution. Much like fighting words are not protected by the First Amendment but you still have free speech in the US.

The problem is that everyone has a different opinion regarding what's considered "hate speech."

Maybe the MRA's get into power and they decree that feminist writings will from now on be considered banned hate-speech. They also ban any and all speech that they regard as supporting misandry. Which includes discussions of rape culture and anti-domestic violence work.

The point is that banning what the current power-group considers 'hate-speech' sets a dangerous precedent. Even if you agree with the current power-group's definition of hate speech, what happens a group you don't agree with takes power? As SashimiX said, freedom of speech protects the dissident. Even those dissidents you don't like.

What do you mean by "fighting words"? Those other things are outlawed actions, not outlawed speech. They are actions that may be executed involving speech, but it's not the speech itself that's outlawed. Death threats, for an example, are a matter of giving someone cause to fear for their lives.

Speech meant to incite hatred or violence, it's not protected by the First Amendment in the US.

Actually, it is. Only speech that is directly inciting imminent violence against a particular person falls outside first amendment protection. So, getting up on a soap box on some corner and saying, "let's all kill some <insert minority here>" is perfectly legal, while saying "let's all kill that <insert minority here>" while pointing at someone is not.

how is the act of speaking hate speech not giving an entire minority group cause to fear for their lives? this is also why hate crimes are given greater sentencing, because their crimes affect the entirety of the relevant minority population.

I get where you're coming from, but I think if you take it to that extent it's too easy to start the trend of banning controversial speech. All those other things are actions against a specific individual, not just some asshole with a platform spouting vitriol. Like I said elsewhere, I'd love to see some sort of law somehow banning them from harassing funerals, I'd really rather not send people to prison simply for sharing their horrible opinions, though.

given the current prison system, I'd preferably not have to send them to prison either. but prison isn't the only punitive measure available to a judge. I'd much rather institute prohibitive fines or something else.

But what's to keep, say, some particularly religiously conservative state using that kind of broad imposition on speech to pass some sort of blasphemy law? I mean, I know how I would vote on that, but I don't trust the rest of the country to be as discerning. I certainly wouldn't mind seeing the WBC people spending 30 days in lockup every time they show up to a funeral to spew slurs and hate speech though. I can't really see a reason why you'd need to have controversial protests at a funeral that would be morally justifiable, but I can definitely see the need to protect the ability of controversial figures to stand on a soapbox and say things that make people angry, even if I personally would be happy to hear that they'd stumbled out in front of a bus.

Just an example as to why I don't buy what you're saying: Canada has had hate speech banned for quite some time now, and since 2003 or so they've implemented a gender-neutral definition of marriage -- effectively putting an end to marriage discrimination. They're still making great progress in not just the acceptance of gays and lesbians, but for transgender, genderqueer, and other GSM folk.

In contrast, we in the USA have been struggling for the past 50 years or so to legalize same-sex marriage, if that gives you any idea how far behind we really are

I don't understand what your example proves. Are you saying the US is behind Canada because of our lack of hate speech laws? If so, I don't buy it.

The US and Canada are not culturally identical, especially in the southern US. The US is a much more religious, conservative, authoritarian country than Canada is. That is definitely not just because of its laws.

Do you really think southern white people are suddenly going to change just because you don't let them use hate speech in public? People will still do it in private. They will still be racist as shit. They will still harass and assault trans* people and get away with it.

Also, knowing white Americans, they'll get white people included as a protected group in any hate speech laws, if they even allow them to pass. They did it with hate crime laws. They will manipulate whatever bill you pass to make sure minorities don't gain an advantage, something white people view as "reverse racism"

hate crimes laws actually don't make any specifications on the basis of race. No one added in "white people" as a protected group, or "black people" for that matter. They are written generally in such a way that it applies to any crime where the person's race is a motivating factor, regardless of which race it is. I don't see how that is a bad thing..

Also, knowing white Americans, they'll get white people included as a protected group in any hate speech laws, if they even allow them to pass. They did it with hate crime laws. They will manipulate whatever bill you pass to make sure minorities don't gain an advantage, something white people view as "reverse racism"

I don't get why this is a bad thing. If a person kills a white person because they are white, is that less bad than killing a black person because they are black? This seems like it undermines equality under the law.

If a person kills a white person because they are white, is that less bad than killing a black person because they are black?

Yes, it is, because of reality. Reality, where no actual white people are actually killed because they are white, and a great many PoC are killed precisely because of their color. This reality says that even if in the hypothetical future, someone kills a white person because of that person's whiteness, it will be an anomaly, a one-off, a freak occurrence. That is always "less bad" than a killing that is part of a great societal pattern, a natural outgrowth of larger social prejudices that guarantee the same thing will happen again and again and again with no end in sight.

Edit:

This seems like it undermines equality under the law.

How does acknowleding that inequality exists in reality undermine equality under law?

How does acknowleding that inequality exists in reality undermine equality under law?

I would think unequal prosecutorial effort and unequal sentencing is what should be targeted, i.e. having more PoC prosecutors and judges and legislators, as opposed to unequal laws. Semi-permanently enshrining the grading of some persons' murders as worse than other persons' murders in the lawbooks seems like a really lousy solution to the problem, and one that will still always be critically undermined by institutional racism in prosecution and sentencing.

Semi-permanently enshrining the grading of some persons' murders as worse than other persons' murders in the lawbooks seems like a really lousy solution to the problem

Well, yes, but nobody is suggesting that we should put "murdering white people is less bad than murdering black people" in the lawbooks! What I am talking about is not a novel concept even for the law. It already exists, in fact, in the form of legislation against hate crimes. The law already recognizes that when the motivation for a particular crime is an institutional/societal prejudice, it warrants extra charges and punishments.

Like, a Mexican-American person wearing orange clothes burning a 4x4 plank of wood on the lawn of her Korean-American neighbor is going to be charged with just vandalism, but a white person wearing a white hood who burns wood of a different shape, a cross, on the lawn of his black neighbor is going to get charged with a hate crime. It's not that hard, and does not undermine equality under law.

Unfortunately, I really don't. I wish it were that easy. I don't think speech should ever really be grounds for legal action. The constitutional protection of free speech is essential to progress and free thought, as is the right to peaceful assembly. That said, obviously there are things involving speech that don't exactly qualify because it's not the speech that's objectionable but the action the speech is a part of. Threats, for example, or harassment. Those are criminal actions though, not criminal speech.

What could be done, and probably ought to be done, is to entrust the public roads and sidewalks in the vicinity of cemeteries in areas being targeted by groups like this to the owners of the graveyard with certain caveats. The idea would be to keep things legally much the same as they were, except to create the ability for a groundskeeper to trespass members of WBC. Or, I suppose, more simply, it could just become illegal to disturb a funeral. Regardless of how it's tackled, I don't think it should (or, legally, could) focus on speech or somehow limit the ability of the Phelps to say disgusting things. I don't want to live in a society that throws people in jail for their ideas, ridiculous as they may be, any more than I want to live in the society WBC wants.

[B]anning any and all hate speech is a slippery slope. Do controversial opinions that defy societal norms qualify as hate speech? No, but the argument could be made as such by someone who didn't like the message.

and basically the rest of their comment.

Banning hate speech just because of the WBC would be pretty much saying, "Well just because this group of especially sour grapes wanted to toss their shit around in the name of their entity, we're gonna have to bar everyone who isn't even part of this group from saying anything that could even be slightly seen as hate speech," and thus everyone gets their first amendment right taken away because of a shitty group that wanted to act like assholes.

I think they should just put a restraining order on the whole WBC from ever stepping foot in a graveyard and other such places, because what they're doing could be considered harassment and might be able to be sued for emotional damages, maybe. I'm no lawyer, though.

Real culture refers to the values and norms that a society actually follows, while ideal culture refers to the values and norms that a society professes to believe.1

Your constitution-based libertarian utopia regularly bans forms of speech that shouldn't be free: CP, IP, libel, and slander. If your idea of progress and free thought is the eroding of hate culture, the additional banning of hate speech would not impede it.

That's the thing though. Hate speech being legal hasn't stopped the rest of the US from turning against the WBC's horrible ideology. I'd even guess that the sheer blatant antagonism of it has caused some people who previously held bigoted views to rethink them so as not to be lumped in with that group. They are able to support themselves because people keep assaulting them. If no one touched them, they wouldn't have grounds to sue.

I prefer the approach of announcing that a pro-LGBT charity will be donated to for every hour that they're out there protesting. It tends to get them to stop pretty quick, and there's a net positive benefit.

Terrible idea, who decides what IS hate speech to start with! Secondly, notice how organisations and people who are free to spew as much foulness as they wish often do exactly that? They are free to show themselves for what they are- whereas ban the vileness and they are still horrible people but they get to hide it....

Not at all- what I am pointing out is that I can think of many occasions when an utterance is described as hate by one sector yet defended by many others. There is a distinct difference between an utterance and an action though. We can see how nasty Mr Phelps actually is- and yet I have heard equally nasty bits of speech come forth unquestioned, read the Daily Mail any day- of the two I suggest The Mail is more dangerous because it is more acceptable.

The only reason I'm really against it is the problem that it's adding to the responsibilities and actions of police and will probably be used disproportionately against poor people of color who have an incredibly badly tilted access in criminal justice anyway.

Well, there are limits to free speech. For example you cannot incite others to commit violent acts, or yell "fire" in a crowded theater.
Many people here probably respond with the slippery slope argument, ban one type of "offensive" language, and then you're banning newspapers. But I really don't believe that is a very convincing argument.
The approach I take is that it makes more sense for people to ignore or avoid offensive language than it does for the government to step in and censor it for us. Not only might we have different ideas of what is appropriate from each other, our own feelings will also change over time, and the only way to insure we have access to the information we want is to not restrict it.
By the way, there are other ways of restricting "free speech." A public demonstration will require a permit, and you could more easily deny a permit than strip someone of their first amendment rights. That's what I would do.

Absolutely not. Don't get me wrong, I detest the WBC. But banning any and all hate speech is a slippery slope. Do controversial opinions that defy societal norms qualify as hate speech? No, but the argument could be made as such by someone who didn't like the message.

Technically, there are restrictions on hate speech already. Speech that is intended to incite violence, for example. Specifically pointing out one person and saying horrible and untrue things about that person is known as libel. The WBC gets around these rules because the WBC is hiding behind "God hates xyz", so the WBC isn't saying "We hate xyz" and can get away with that, because they aren't saying that the WBC specifically hates anyone. They can, and do, claim that they are delivering a message as opposed to inciting violence.

It's generally my concern that when laws are written to ban one specific subset or group that it sets precedent to ban other groups of people who may be relatively harmless but are not within the socially acceptable standards of the majority.

Sweden prohibits hate speech, and defines it as publicly making statements that threaten or express disrespect for an ethnic group or similar group regarding their race, skin colour, national or ethnic origin, faith or sexual orientation.[41][42] The crime doesn't prohibit a pertinent and responsible debate (en saklig och vederhäftig diskussion), nor statements made in a completely private sphere.[43] There are constitutional restrictions pertaining to which acts are criminalized, as well limits set by the European Convention on Human Rights.[44]
The sexual orientation provision, added in 2002,[45] was used to convict Pentecostalist pastor Åke Green of hate speech based on a 2003 sermon. His conviction was later overturned.[44][46]

As an atheist I just don't feel comfortable with the government stepping in and broadly banning "disrespect" of "faith." I can only imagine how republicans would use that kind of law to fuck over atheists and freethinkers.

Honestly, maybe someone from a country with hate speech bans can reassure me, but I would be very afraid to live in one of those countries as an atheist. I know that, paradoxically, those countries tend to be better atmospheres for secular types, but, following the letter of this law for example, I would worry about being caught "expressing disrespect" for organized religion, or any other institutionalized system of oppression that might neatly be tied up with one of those other factors . Also, what exactly qualifies as "expressing disrespect"? Is it defined in the actual statute?

That law is increeedibly overbroad as presented and would never pass constitutional muster in the United States.

Yes, but the US won't implement anything like that effectively without a drastic culture shift. The social, political, and economic power structures are too much 'rugged individualist', 'free-for-all', 'anything goes' to effectively implement policies that are the antithesis of our dominant culture.

I honestly don't think this case is "hate speech". the protesting part, yes, maybe. I'd like to note that, in this case, the media propagates the WBC - just like reddit- fueling them. Hiring security to prevent protesters to disturb the ceremony would be efficient enough and not letting so much space to their speech is the proper way to go, but it's up to the medias, not to the government.

Anf for the record :

Human's rights declaration. Art 19 : Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Well, I don't think banning hate speech will have any change on the institutionalized side of things. Also, I think largely the problem is much more subtle than a bunch of loud mouth WBC jerks, I'm much more concerned about people who are largely unaware of their bigotry and I don't think radically changing the 1st amendment is going to help with that one bit. The vast, vast majority of people do not identify with hate groups.

Fair point, but it does send a message that this sort of speech is wrong, which is the first step. Ideally you'd get rid of discrimination purely on a social level and legal matters don't solve this but they are a first step.

I think that no one in Topeka or the surrounding areas should have anything to do with Westboro Baptist Church. ANYTHING. They should not be able to walk into a restaurant and get served. They should not be able to fill up their tank at the gas station. They should not be able to buy toilet paper at the grocery store. None of their neighbors should talk to them. Their employer should fire them; since Kansas has at-will employment, they don't have to give a reason. They should be completely ostracized and treated like they were dead. And this is how every community should treat every known spewer of hate speech.

I'm not flat out against such a ban, but I don't know exactly how this would work. Legal solutions are most efficacious when punishing or preventing a material damage (assault to the body, theft of property, negligence resulting in physical harm or loss of property, traffic safety, etc). Legislation against "social ills" (quotes intentional), such as hate speech, drug use or sexual deviance are inherently problematic.

What would the definition of "hate speech" be? How open to judicial or executive interpretation? Would the law be abused to shut down dissident groups (I'm pretty sure at least a couple people with Occupy have made statements that could be considered hate speech - would the law allow the government to ban them as a group outright?)

How would the law be implemented? At the state level you just end up with a patchwork of different standards that can cause some real headaches when information is transmitted across state lines. At the federal level I fear any enforcement mechanism could become another tool in what is becoming an increasingly authoritarian executive toolbox.

There is also no guarantee that enforcement would not be highly specific, targeting some high-profile groups while leaving truly dangerous, violent organizations untouched because they're not pulling as much ink and airtime.

Also in Canada currently, love that there is a big societal "no" to hate speech - it has kept people from becoming jaded and "used to" hate speech. Free speech doesn't mean consequence free speech - people are free to advocate hate, subject to penalties that are justifiable in a free and democratic society, like fine, sanction, or if inciting violence - imprisonment.

The idea that free speech mean consequence-free slur-slinging and violence incitement has always been alien to me, and hate speech laws help to build a society where our collective gorge rejects the speech and isn't jaded to it.

The US should definitely NOT ban hate speech, and your example is a great reason why. The WBC has been protesting everything anybody likes for over a decade, and the result is exactly that everyone hates them. They're killing their own ideas (including some hateful ideas that were sort of acceptable when they started out) by associating those with hate for soldiers and massacre victims and anybody that anybody would find even sort of sympathetic.

You know how in US politics homophobes tend to have to say "oh we don't hate gay people, we just oppose gay marriage for... reasons!"? The reason they can't put the hate for gay people they obviously have out in the open is that open hate for gay people is now associated with the WBC and people like the WBC. I wouldn't give up the WBC's right to free speech for anything; once they can't be publicly obnoxious and hateful, they won't be publicly obnoxious and hateful, and as a result a lot of the people who were inclined to be that hateful won't have any reason to back off from the worst sorts of hate.

I think everyone here is universally against any sort of hate speech that falls into the realm of harassment. However, hate speech isn't exactly harassment by itself. It's just one of those ideas that has a sentiment I can get behind, but I truly do not believe it's effectiveness will even approach justifying its intrusiveness. It sends the clear message that hate speech is okay behind closed doors and it will feed into the "PC police" boogeyman sentiment that is quite prevalent across shitlord America.

Sure, you can go to that old tired argument saying "well if you hate them so much then picket back!!" if you want. But like, that's not working! EVERYONE in the US has pretty much turned against WBC -- vocally so -- and WBC is still out protesting and they show no signs of stopping because their funding is steady (thanks to countless settlements earned from abusing the same legal system that granted them free speech).

I know there is some debate over whether or not the family is an indoctrinated cult or simply attention seekers (probably both), but I do know that whenever they announce that they'll be picketing a funeral and it gets broadcast every news station, it only serves to feed their ego. They already see themselves as oppressed minorities, so I feel like we should try to ignore them. Obviously the friends and family attending the funeral can't simply ignore them, but I'd rather send support to those who are mourning than fuming about what the WBC is doing this week. It's not easy though because hearing about what the WBC is going to do on a shitty day can really hit a nerve. Maybe I'm only saying this because everyone is starting to turn on the media for how they sensationalize horrific events and give attention to those who would kill for it, but it's not like the habits of our media deserve to be defended.

Hate speech laws have worked well in European nations, but I don't think they'll work well in the United States (right now at least) because this nation is much more religious. Look at what the right wing is doing with respect to abortion and gay marriage. Suddenly giving women health care violates freedom of religion because they don't like what it will be used for. Same issue with gay marriage, churches and conservative religious institutions use freedom of religion to fight against gay marriage.

A similar issue with religion and free speech is happening in the UN. Backwards religious nations (like Saudi Arabia) say criticism of Islam is on par with racism and this stifles progress and discussion. I think a similar thing will happen in the United States in certain red states or nationwide if the Supreme Court overreaches as we've seen already with healthcare.

tl;dr: There's no agreed upon definition of hate speech and unlike Europe, in America fundamentalists/right-wingers have more influence.

Censorship is wrong. It is not the business of any organization to restrict the rights of an individual that do not actively impede the rights of others. Not having your jimmies rustled is not an inherent human right. You can't legislate based on the emotional needs of people. Legislation of this nature is extremely subjective. I also saw a lot of people mention European countries as examples. Europe is not the paragon of all that is right in the world. They suck as much as everyone else. Except the middle east. It sucks the most.

As shitty as they are they perform a useful function. They are a constant reminder of extreme fundamentalism which is something America needs lest we become too religious as a whole.

Well, we already have laws against harassment. And hate speech can easily fall into that category. But banning hate speech altogether seems like overkill. It probably isn't going to get rid of hate speech, and it won't do anything to make people less hateful overall.

There is absolutely no benefit to keeping that kind of shit legal or otherwise unrestricted. At all.

I think you'll find that ignorant opinions usually act against the speaker. The obscene protests by WBC only harm their reputation and stir up public resentment. Their self defamation is one of many reasons why freedom of speech must be embraced instead of suppressed.

To be perfectly honest, I despise the thought of a society where people are punished for sharing their opinions. It's grotesque.

But here's the problem with that: WBC doesn't have a reputation to lose. They're known for the hateful people that they are. This hasn't stopped them from showing up at countless funerals and protesting (and sometimes harassing) victims of awful tragedies. Pointing out that WBC are hateful people does nothing to actually stop them from doing hateful and harmful things.

Now you're also kind of trivializing what WBC is saying as if it were just an opinion like any other. It's not -- WBC are saying that it's a good thing that lots of innocent children were murdered, which unspokenly is accepting and embracing the massacre of a group of people, and from that prospective is clear-cut hate speech that in Canada or Sweden, would have put you behind bars.

Right now, both of those countries have hate speech banned and/or restricted and I'm pretty sure they're centuries ahead of us on civil rights issues.

While I agree that harassment is a crime, saying hurtful things is not. It's impossible to draw a line between right and wrong opinions while being as objective and unbiased as the law needs to be.

By arresting WBC you want to censor ideas that offended you, deny them their rights to religious freedom (the claims they make are no less ridiculous or potentially true than the claims of many other religions), dictate what thoughts are acceptable and what aren't, place your own ethics above those of minority group, create potentially devastating laws that are easy to abuse and really on highly subjective definitions.

Don't forget, these people think what they're doing is good. They are just as sure of their moral superiority as you are of yours. Do you really think you have the moral authority to lock away a group of people for expressing what they believe in?

I don't really think the issue is simple enough to think that banning them won't have wider negative ramifications.

It does nothing to stop the WBC, but it's not about the WBC. Allowing the WBC to spew their bigotry has done IMMENSE amounts to stop that sort of bigotry from spreading elsewhere.

When the same people are saying "God hates ***s" and picketing soldiers' funerals, it gets the sort of person who really respects the military and might be inclined towards homophobia themselves to maybe reconsider the sort of hate they're endorsing.

When a group is so toxic they force Rush Limbaugh to say "I'm not like those guys" it sets a strong force in motion in the political sphere to at least not be as bigoted as those guys.

Nobody likes the WBC, and everyone agrees what they're saying is hateful, but it's not actually harmful at all. The WBC is actually a shining example of why we should continue to allow even the nastiest sorts of free speech.

Great discussion. I love the Swedish law you quoted upthread. I think a reasonable definition of hate speech is not difficult to formulate, as the law you quoted shows. My only concern with that wording is it acknowledges no power gradients. Hate speech DOWN power gradients reinforces said power gradients, which is the fundamental reason why hate speech is bad. Ideally a law would make "hate speech" okay when practiced UP power gradients (i.e. "hate speech" against S/A/W/C/A/S/Ms would be a little more allowed than hate speech against Q/D/PoC/T/P/nonS/nonMs) because such speech is a way to break down those power gradients.